M.SUNDAR
Jothi Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
P. Natarajan – Respondent
1. Plaintiff in the trial court is the revision petitioner before me. The suit has been filed in the trial court with prayers for declaration of title, consequential injunction and the plaint prayer is predicated primarily on the plea of oral exchange.
2. In the course of the trial of the suit, an application being I.A. No. 53/2017 was taken out by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for the sake of brevity), praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
3. The prayer in the said I.A. is for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property along with the competent Surveyor measure the suit property in dispute fix the boundary line and file a detailed report with plan.
4. In this prayer 7 survey Nos. have been cited and they are as follows:-
1.
R.S. No. 266/1B
2.
R.S. No. 266/2
3.
R.S. No. 266/3
4.
R.S. No. 266/4
5.
R.S. No. 266/5
6.
R.S. No. 266/10A
7.
R.S. No. 266/10B
5. The learned Trial Judge, after full contest in the Interlocutory Application for appointment of an Advoca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.